UN concern over disciplinary case against UK lawyer for ‘boys’ club’ remarks

Four UN special rapporteurs have warned that disciplinary proceedings against a female barrister for saying a judge had shown a “boys’ club attitude” may send “a disconcerting message” to lawyers challenging gender bias in custody and domestic abuse cases.

Charlotte Proudman is accused by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) of tweeting misleading information for comments she made about Jonathan Cohen – a member of the Garrick Club, which recently ended its ban on female members after 193 years – over remarks he made in a family case ruling two years ago.

In 2022, Proudman wrote on X she was troubled by Cohen referring in a judgment to the relationship between a woman and her part-time judge and barrister ex-husband as “tempestuous”, and his use of the word “reckless” to describe the alleged domestic violence.

Proudman, whose legal team have applied to strike out the BSB charges, wrote about Cohen’s ruling: “I do not accept the judge’s reasoning. This judgment has echoes of the ‘boys’ club’ which still exists among men in powerful positions.”

In a letter to the UK government, the special rapporteurs on violence against women and girls, freedom of opinion and expression, human rights defenders and discrimination against women and girls expressed concern about both the BSB investigation into Proudman and the online abuse aimed at her by people unconnected with the proceedings or the family law case.

They said: “While we do not wish to prejudge the accuracy of the above-mentioned allegations, we are concerned that the ongoing harassment of Dr Proudman, combined with the BSB’s decision to take disciplinary proceedings may send a disconcerting message that legal professionals who dare to challenge alleged systemic gender bias against mothers in custody cases, and women who are survivors of domestic violence, will be punished.

“It may also lead to fear within the community of women human rights defenders, academics and practising lawyers and barristers who are working to defend the rights of women within the UK, that such decisions will significantly deter victims further from reporting and/or voicing their abuse; thus placing women and children at further risk of significant harm.”

The letter, sent in May but first published on Monday, highlighted “misogynistic and sexist” alleged online attacks against Proudman and said this was facilitated by gaps in the BSB’s code of conduct and social media guidance regarding this specific threat.

The special rapporteurs also expressed concern “at reports that disciplinary proceedings against Dr Proudman are directly related to her professional activities as a lawyer”. The letter said that if this was the case, it would be in breach of the conditions lawyers are entitled to in order to perform their professional duties and reminded the government that “lawyers, as all other people living in the United Kingdom, are entitled to freedom of expression”.

They asked the government to respond to several issues including the alleged online abuse aimed at Proudman – and against women more widely – and the BSB investigations.

In its reply, dated 4 July and also published on Monday, the government said: “It would be inappropriate for government ministers or officials to comment or intervene on any individual cases, complaints or disciplinary proceedings, such as Dr Proudman’s … the government has taken a firm approach and multiple courses of action to tackle violence against women and girls, including crimes perpetrated online.”

Proudman could face a 12-month suspension of her licence or a fine if found in breach of standards. Cohen has not responded to Proudman’s remarks in keeping with the protocol that judges cannot comment on cases outside court.

A BSB spokesperson said: “We do not consider there are gaps in our handbook and social media guidance in relation to misogyny and sexism. We do, however, keep our rules under review and will shortly be consulting on revisions to our equality rules. We are not prepared to comment on the individual case to which you refer.”